Disposed

Raveendran v. Indian Pentecostal Church of God

Kerala HC16 Nov 2022RCRev./61/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision challenged a Rent Control Appellate Authority order allowing eviction for rent arrears and genuine bona fide need. The High Court affirmed the lower authority finding the Secretary competent to represent the landlord society and the tenant not entitled to protection under residential guise.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order affirmed; tenant directed to vacate premises within one month; revision dismissed.

Raveendran Vs Indian Pentecostal Church of God — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

RCREV. NO.61 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCP NO.54/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

RCA NO.23/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶11

RAVEENDRAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.PONNAYYAN, T.C.14/453, BELONGING TO INDIAN PENTHACOAST DAIVASABHA, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT TC 6/520(1), WHITEFIELD, KUNJUVEEDU LANE, THURUVICKAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶12

BY ADVS. D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH SMT.ARYA JOSEPH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶13

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶14

1 INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD, KERALA STATE COUNCIL, HEAD QUARTERS AT KUMBANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689547, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PASTOR PHILIP P.THOMAS.

¶15

2 K.G.JOYKUTTY, S/O.GEEVARGHESE, PRESIDENT OF ARAMADA, LOCAL SABHA, ARAMADA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695032.

¶16

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

3 J.SAMUEL, S/O.JOSEPH, SECRETARTY OF ARAMADA LOCAL SABHA, ARAMADA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695032.

¶19

4 C.JAMES RAI, S/O.CHINNAPPAN, TREASURER OF ARAMADA, LOCAL SABHA, ARAMADA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695032. BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P.

¶20

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.11.2022, THE COURT ON 16.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶22

¶23

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.

¶24

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2022

¶27

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶28

This revision is filed challenging an order of

¶29

eviction. The Indian Pentecostal Church of God, Kerala State Council is the owner and landlord of

¶30

the building in question. It is a registered

¶31

society under the Societies Registration Act. The

¶32

society was represented by its Secretary in the

¶33

petition for eviction. In the above petition, the

¶34

other officials had also joined, except the

¶35

President. The eviction petition was filed for rent

¶36

arrears, as well as the bona fide need of the

¶37

society for its own occupation. The Rent Controller

¶38

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

dismissed the eviction petition holding that the Secretary failed to prove his authority to represent the society. The Rent Controller did not advert to the grounds of eviction urged by the landlord. On an appeal by the landlord, the

¶41

appellate authority, placing reliance on the additional documents produced in the appeal formed the view that the Secretary is the competent person to sue on behalf of the society and on a further examination of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the tenant had defaulted on payment of rent and also found that the need projected under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1955 (for short, the 'Act') was genuine and bonafide, and ordered eviction.

¶42

The society is a juridical and legal entity. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord produced only the Ext.A1 Memorandum of Association. There were a series of litigations among the members of

¶43

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶44

-:3:-

¶45

the society as to the management of the society.

¶46

This factional feud was highlighted by the tenant to contend that the President is competent to represent the society. Ext.A1 was not accompanied with the Certificate of Registration. Section-III of Article VIII of the Memorandum of Association refers to the power of the Secretary. Clause 6 of Section-III, states that he has the authority to sign legal documents as may be required in consultation with the President. In appeal, the additional documents were marked as Ext.A19 and A20. Ext.A19 is the Certificate of Registration. Ext.A20 is an amended bye-law. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the ownership of the building being vested with the Indian Pentecostal Church of God, Kerala State Council. The documents produced would clearly demonstrate the competence of the Secretary to represent the society.

¶47

The learned counsel Shri D.Kishore appearing for the Revision Petitioner would argue that the

¶48

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶49

-:4:-

¶50

additional documents received in the appellate stage had prejudiced the tenant in as much as that no opportunity was given to the tenant to contradict or rebut the additional documents.

¶51

There is no quarrel as to the power of the

¶52

Rent Control Appellate Authority to receive additional evidence. Rule 16 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 provides the appellate authority with the same power as that of the Rent Control Court to make further enquiries and also to take additional evidence. The registration certificate produced and marked as Ext.A19 is a public document. We find that no prejudice has been caused to the tenant by producing these documents. In fact, these documents were produced to further and substantiate the claim that the Secretary is

¶53

competent to represent. It is to be noted that in

¶54

a Rent Control Petition, it is not open for a

¶55

tenant to contend that the landlord is improperly

¶56

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶57

-:5:-

¶58

represented in a petition for eviction except

¶59

where fraud is committed in proceedings for eviction. The corporate body would fall within the meaning of landlord. In no way a tenant would be prejudiced if the body corporate is irregularly represented in eviction proceedings. In this revision, an additional document is produced in furtherance of the claim put forward by the landlord. The additional document is the minutes book of the society for the period from 2006-2009 containing the decision of the society in the meeting held on 25/11/2008. It was in that meeting, a decision was taken to initiate legal proceedings against the revision

¶60

petitioner/tenant. This additional document is being produced only to support the claim already

¶61

put forward. We allow this interlocutory application and mark the minutes book as an

¶62

additional document, Ext.A21 in the above

proceedings.

R.C.R.No.61/2021

-:6:-

We are of the firm view that the tenant had

¶67

gone beyond his brief to cast doubt on the competency of the Secretary to protract the proceedings than to defend his own cause. Anyway, we find no error in the order passed by the appellate authority holding that the Secretary is competent to represent the society.

¶68

Admittedly, the rent is in arrears from 6/7/2000 onwards. In that view of the matter, the

¶69

order of eviction granted by the appellate authority is only to be affirmed under Section

¶70

11(2)(b) of the Act subject to the right of the

¶71

tenant to vacate the order on deposit of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, affirm the order of the appellate authority on that count.

¶72

In regard to the claim for eviction under

¶73

Section 11(3) of the Act, the need projected was

¶74

that the landlord requires this building for

¶75

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶76

-:7:-

¶77

occupation and use of the believers, who are coming from abroad as well as from other States. It is the case of the landlord that the society is conducting other activities and the believers from across the country and abroad would participate in such programs. Taking note of the activities of the society, there is no scope for doubting their requirement and need. The tenant would contend that he is depending upon the income from the building. However, it has come out that he has two other buildings within the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, where the tenanted premises is situated. He also failed to adduce evidence to prove that the income derived from the petition schedule building is the main source of income and there are no other buildings in the locality, to

¶78

entitle him the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3). We find that the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is perfect

¶79

in such circumstances and it warrants no

¶80

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶81

-:8:-

¶82

interference. The revision fails on that ground also.

¶83

In light of the above, the Rent Control Revision fails and is dismissed. The Rent Control Petition was filed in the year 2010. The tenant is ordered to vacate the tenanted premises within one month from today. No orders as to costs.

¶84

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE

¶87

16^th November, 2022

¶88

Today, after the pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for the first respondent

¶89

submitted that the original minutes book of the

¶90

first respondent for the period from 2006-2009 may

¶91

be returned to the first respondent. Considering

¶92

the above submission, this Court is of the view

¶93

R.C.R.No.61/2021

¶94

-:9:-

¶95

that the original minutes book can be returned by substituting it with certified copy of pages 82 to 87 therein. Therefore, the Registry shall keep a certified copy of the relevant pages of the original minutes book for marking as the additional document Ext.A21 and return the minutes book in original to the first respondent on proper receipt. Sd/-

¶96

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-

¶97

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE

¶98

Raveendran v. Indian Pentecostal Church of God

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. Indian Pentecostal Church of God

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K.Vijayan, Vs Pradeep P.V.

P.K. Hamza Vs Saithali Haji

Leelamma Johny Vs Mallu

P.K.C Fruits Vs Shihabudheen

Musthafa Vs Abdul Majeed

P.K.C.Fruits Vs Shihabudheen